Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/men-
Roots[edit]
Roots 5 and 6 definitely need some work, is root 5 simply an {{alternative form of|Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/man-|man-|lang=ine-pro}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Mind[edit]
Is 'mind' a good one to list under English or is the source too indirect? --121.74.236.128 04:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it is legit here. Zezen (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Slavic derivatives[edit]
Shall we link Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/mǫdrъ#Etymology as cognate thereto? Zezen (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
PII *mányatay[edit]
@Rua, the PII form looks to point to the 3sg.mid. *(é)-yetor, *(é)-yetoy. --Victar (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- What about the other languages though? —Rua (mew) 21:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Rua: Works for Celtic, and I don't even know if the Greek belongs there. --Victar (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Victar: Sorry, for which are you saying the Celtic works? Looking at them, the Celtic and Greek are perfect equations from *mn̥-yé-tor, whereas the IIr seems to be *mén-ye-tor. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 04:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Sorry, was very unclear. *mn̥-yé-tor works for Celtic, not not PII, where it would have become *mayátay. *mén-ye-tor ~ *mn̥-yó-ror could technically work for Celtic, if you say it was leveled to *mn̥-, but more likely, they're two different PIE derivatives. --Victar (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thematic stems don't ablaut, so there couldn't be a paradigm as you described. —Rua (mew) 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Rua: regardless, it doesn't fit for the Sanskrit form, so I'm moving it under its own PIE derivative. --Victar (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pending solid evidence for Victar's claim that the expected result would be *mayátay, I've undone the separation, following LIV. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Rua: regardless, it doesn't fit for the Sanskrit form, so I'm moving it under its own PIE derivative. --Victar (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thematic stems don't ablaut, so there couldn't be a paradigm as you described. —Rua (mew) 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Sorry, was very unclear. *mn̥-yé-tor works for Celtic, not not PII, where it would have become *mayátay. *mén-ye-tor ~ *mn̥-yó-ror could technically work for Celtic, if you say it was leveled to *mn̥-, but more likely, they're two different PIE derivatives. --Victar (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Victar: Sorry, for which are you saying the Celtic works? Looking at them, the Celtic and Greek are perfect equations from *mn̥-yé-tor, whereas the IIr seems to be *mén-ye-tor. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 04:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Rua: Works for Celtic, and I don't even know if the Greek belongs there. --Victar (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Ancient Greek "Mousa"[edit]
The part that refers to "Mousa" (Muse) as being derived from men-: "Hellenic: [Term?] Ancient Greek: Μοῦσα (Moûsa)". I believe it should be noted that this is only a possible etymology that we're not certain of. Perhaps it should not be included in this entry at all as the origin of the word for "Muse" is debated with a leading scholar (Beekes) even rejecting its possibility completely. Please edit the entry accordingly if you guys think it would be necessary (I'm not an editor of Wiktionary myself so wouldn't know the guidelines etc. to do so).
Latin memor[edit]
How is PIE "memnos" declined? Acc. "memnosm̥"? Rare to have this PIE substantive noun made adjective. Closest to this seems to be Latin "augur" (abstract made concrete)...
What other example of this corruption, "-mn-" > "-m-", is in Latin?
Could not Latin "memor"/"memorem" be from PIE "me-mo(n-s)"/"me-mon-m̥"? Or, if truly from some "-mn-" form, from "me-mn-o(ns)"/"me-mn-onm̥", thus cognate with some Ancient Greek form, "μέμνων"? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Connection[edit]
Could mn#Egyptian be related in deep prehistory? Houses39 (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)